COMBINED SYNOPSIS_19Apr23.docx

COMBINED SYNOPSIS/SOLICITATION

This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial services prepared in accordance with the format in FAR part 15 and FAR subpart 12.6 as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; proposals are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued.

The solicitation number is N6274223R3611 and will be issued as a request for proposal (RFP). The solicitation document and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular 2023-02.

This requirement is being solicited as an 8(a) competitive. The NAICS code for this requirement is 236220 with a small business size standard of $45M.

This synopsis/solicitation notice is a request for proposals for a Non-Personal Service Contract to provide Construction Management Services that will support the existing workforce in the Naval Facilities Engineering Services Command Systems (NAVFAC) Pacific Area of Responsibility (AOR). Services shall be in accordance with the attached Performance Work Statement (PWS).

PLACE OF PERFORMANCE: The place of performance for the work under this acquisition is NAVFAC Pacific AOR, primarily for the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program (SIOP) program, Joint Task Force Red Hill (JTF-RH), Defense Policy Review Initiative (DPRI), Pacific Deterrence Initiative (PDI). NAVFAC Pacific AOR include, but are not limited to, the following locations:

Far East: Atsugi, Camp Butler, Iwakuni, Misawa, Okinawa, Sasebo, Singapore, Yokosuka, Chinhae (Korea), Diego Garcia (British Indian Ocean Territory) and the Philippines Marianas: All bases on Guam, including Naval Base Guam, Camp Blaz and Andersen Air Force Base; Timor Leste, Palau, Tinian, Yap, Chuuk, and various islands in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) Australia Hawaii: Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hawaii, Pacific Missile Range Facility Barking Sands (PMRF) Northwest: Bangor, Bremerton, Everett, Whidbey, Puget Sound Southwest: 29 Palms, Barstow, Bridgeport, Camp Pendleton, China Lake, Coastal Campus, Coronado, El Centro, Fallon, Lemoore, MCRD, Miramar, Monterey, Point Loma, San Diego, Seal Beach, San Francisco, Travis Air Force Base, Ventura, Yuma.

PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: The period of performance (PoP) for the work under this acquisition is the base year, plus four 12-month option Periods.

Per FAR 12.603(c)(2), the following clauses and provisions are applicable to this acquisition and all addenda are contained within or attached to this solicitation:

· FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Nov 2021)

· FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items (Nov 2021)

· FAR 52.212-3 Alt I (Dev), Offeror Representations and Certifications – Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Deviation 2023-O0002) Alternate I (Oct 2014)

· FAR 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions – Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Dec 2022)

· FAR 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders – Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Dec 2022) Proposals must be received by noon, Hawaii Standard Time (HST) on Monday, May 22, 2023 through electronic submittal:

· The Contractor shall submit all volumes of its proposal electronically using Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) Solicitation Module at the website https://cac.piee.eb.mil/sol/xhtml/auth/index.xhtml

· Register at PIEE using the PIEE Vendor Registration Guide, provided in Attachment JL-1.

· Follow the PIEE Proposal Manager, Proposal Manager Functions and Posting Offer Guides, Attachment JL-1.

· Electronic cost proposal files shall include editable and searchable documents (e.g. Excel files, Word, Adobe PDF)) of Cost Model and the supporting cost documentation. Ensure all links to external files from the proposal spreadsheets/formulas have been removed. Excel spreadsheets shall not contain macros, circular references or iterative formulas. If submitting PDF documents with the electronic proposal, the text shall be a font of Arial, 11 point.

· Electronic submissions shall be compatible with Windows type CPUs and Microsoft Word 2016, Excel 2016 (file extension shall be .xlsx or .xls), and Adobe Acrobat Software .

Proposals not received at the above address on or before the hour and date set forth for receipt of proposals shall be subject to the provisions of FAR 52.215-1(c), “Submission, modification, revision, and withdrawal of proposals.”

Questions regarding this solicitation are due no later than May 08, 2023 at 14:00 HST, by email to the government point of contact, Vanessa Cariaso at vanessaann.s.cariaso.civ@us.navy.mil or NFPACQ21-Box1@navy.mil. Questions will be answered by an amendment to this solicitation not individually when received. Please continue to monitor SAM.gov and PIEE for any updates to this solicitation. Changes to the solicitation can only be made by the issuance of amendments.

PROVISIONS

ADDENDUM to FAR 52.212-1, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES (NOV 2021) Offerors shall submit complete and accurate information. The Government may elect not to evaluate a proposal missing requested information rather than to request additional information to perform the evaluation. Offerors shall submit their proposal in two separate volumes, the non-price proposal and the price proposal. Each volume shall be appropriately tabbed and present a clear, concise offer.

· Volume I – Price Proposal

· Volume II – Non-price Proposal (Factors 1, 2, and 3)

PARAGRAPH NO. TITLE

L.1 TIME FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS

(a) Unnecessarily elaborate brochures or other presentations beyond those sufficient to present a complete and effective response to the solicitation are not desired and may be construed as an indication of the offeror’s lack of cost consciousness. Elaborate artwork, expensive paper and bindings, and expensive visual and other presentation aids are neither necessary nor encouraged.

(b) Non-price and price proposals shall be submitted no later than the date and time provided in Block 8 of the Standard Form 1449, “Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items” Form.

(c) Proposals shall be submitted to the following address:

1. Electronic submittal:

0. The Contractor shall submit all volumes of its proposal electronically using Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) Solicitation Module at the website https://cac.piee.eb.mil/sol/xhtml/auth/index.xhtml.

0. Register at PIEE using the PIEE Vendor Registration Guide, provided in Attachment JL-1.

0. Follow the PIEE Proposal Manager, Proposal Manager Functions and Posting Offer Guides, Attachment JL-1.

0. Electronic cost proposal files shall include editable and searchable documents (e.g. Excel files, Word, Adobe PDF)) of Cost Model and the supporting cost documentation. Ensure all links to external files from the proposal spreadsheets/formulas have been removed. Excel spreadsheets shall not contain macros, circular references or iterative formulas. If submitting PDF documents with the electronic proposal, the text shall be a font of Arial, 11 point.

0. Electronic submissions shall be compatible with Windows type CPUs and Microsoft Word 2016, Excel 2016 (file extension shall be .xlsx or .xls), and Adobe Acrobat Software .

(d) Proposals not received at the above address on or before the hour and date set forth for receipt of proposals shall be subject to the provisions of FAR 52.215-1(c), “Submission, modification, revision and withdrawal of proposals.”

(e) Offerors shall submit complete and accurate information. The Government may elect not to evaluate a proposal missing requested information rather than to request additional information to perform the evaluation.

L.2 INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SOLICITATION

Questions regarding the solicitation shall be submitted in writing via electronic mail to NFPACQ21-Box1@navy.mil no later than 15 calendar days prior to the proposal due date. Verbal queries will not be entertained. Questions shall be submitted in the format provided in Attachment JL-1.

L.3

AMENDMENTS AND NOTICES TO THE SOLICITATION

Amendments and notices will be posted to the PIEE Solicitation Module at the website https://cac.piee.eb.mil/sol/xhtml/auth/index.xhtml. It is the offeror’s responsibility to check the website periodically for any amendments to the solicitation. Please note that notices do not change the solicitation. Changes to the solicitation can only be made by the issuance of amendments.

L.4

PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

The non-price proposal and the price proposal shall be submitted in separated volumes. Each volume, as described below, shall be appropriately tabbed and present a clear, concise offer.

Volume I – Price Proposal Volume II – Non-price Proposal (Factors 1,2, and 3)

VOLUME I – PRICE PROPOSAL

See L.1 for Volume I submittal instructions.

The price proposal shall contain sufficient information to permit a detailed evaluation. The format of Volume I shall be as follows:

The Price Proposal shall contain sufficient information to permit a detailed evaluation. Electronic Price Proposal files shall include editable documents (e.g. Excel files). Ensure all links to external files from the proposal spreadsheets/formulas have been removed. Excel spreadsheets shall not contain macros, circular references or iterative formulas. The printed format of the Price Proposal shall be as follows:

· Paper shall be white, 8-1/2” X 11” and have margins of 1-inch on all four sides with printing on one side only submitted in 3 D-ring binders. For charts, graphs, and spreadsheets, paper shall be 11” x 17”.

· Text shall be a font of Arial with a type size no smaller than 11 point and single line spacing.

· Graphic text shall be legible and no smaller than 8-point text.

At a minimum, the Volume I - Price Proposal shall be provided in 7 parts and tabbed as follows:

(1) Standard Form (SF) 1449

(2) Section B

(3) Authorized Personnel

(4) Representations & Certifications

(5) Financial Capability

(6) Teaming/JV/LLC

(7) Supporting Price Data/Narrative/Attachment JB-1 JB-2 Pricing Schedule

Under part (1) SF1449, offerors shall complete blocks 12, 17, 23, 24, and 30

Under part (2) Section B, offerors shall complete Section B and accompanying exhibits from Section J of the solicitation. Amounts shall be rounded to the nearest two decimal places.

In Schedule B, Supplies or Services and Prices, Offerors shall enter the proposed fully burdened hourly rate for each labor category listed. Note that the fully burdened hourly rate shall include cost of Labor and Fringe Benefits (i.e. statutory (FICA, FUTA, SUTA), Insurances, other benefits paid by the employer) (as applicable), ODCs, Indirect Costs (i.e. Overhead, General & Administrative, etc.), and Profit for all fourteen (14) labor categories proposed for each of the six (6) locations referenced in Section A.5 (Hawaii, Far East, NAVFAC Southwest, NAVFAC Northwest, Guam/Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands (CNMI), and Australia) for the Base Period, and each Option Period 1 through 4. (Reference PWS Section C for additional location details).

The Schedule B fully burdened hourly rates, if accepted by the Government, shall become a part of the resultant contract. Pricing of Task Orders will be negotiated utilizing the Schedule B fully burdened hourly rates. Work that is not covered by one of the specific labor classifications identified in this contract, but which is within the contract scope and general intent, may be negotiated by the Contracting Officer on an as-needed basis. Offerors shall utilize proposed productive hours for each labor classification to develop the fully burdened hourly rates.

If proposing as a Joint Venture, the Prime (Joint Venture) shall submit one Attachment JB‐1 JB-2 Pricing Schedule for the Joint Venture's proposed total. Subcontractors are not required to provide individual rates.

Under part (3) Authorized Personnel, offerors shall provide name, title, email address, phone and facsimile number of any person or persons authorized to negotiate and bind your firm and points of contact within the company should proposal clarifications be required. Offerors shall provide phone numbers and points of contact at the cognizant Defense Contract Management Command Office responsible for contract administration functions (e.g. DCMA Office) and the cognizant Government audit office (e.g. Defense Contract Audit Agency).

Subcontractors are not required to provide their Authorized Personnel.

Under part (4) Representations & Certifications, offerors shall provide Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offerors, Section K, DFARS Clause 252.204-7007 ALT A. If proposing as a Joint Venture, offerors shall complete this information for the established Joint Venture. Subcontractors are not required to provide individual Representations & Certifications.

Under part (5) Financial Capability, offerors shall provide evidence of financial capability. In accordance with FAR 9.104-1 responsibility determination, a contractor must have adequate financial resources to perform the contract. Offerors shall submit the company’s Dun & Bradstreet number (DUNS) and provide the latest three (3) years complete fiscal year financial statements for the prime contractor, certified by an independent accounting firm, if practicable or at least by an authorized officer of the organization. In addition to the above, submit evidence of availability of working/operating capital, which will be used for the performance of the resultant contract.

For Joint Venture arrangements discuss the financial responsibilities among the companies. If the Joint Venture has been in existence for less than three years, also provide the latest three years complete fiscal year financial statements for each member of the Joint Venture. Subcontractors are not required to evidence of Financial Capability.

Under part (6) Teaming/JV/LLCs, offerors shall submit any Teaming, Joint Ventures (JV), Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) and LLCs. Submit the following additional documentation regarding the business entities:

A copy of the Teaming, JV, or LLC.

A detailed statement outlining the following terms or percentages where appropriate:

· The relationship of the team/partners/parties in terms of business ownership, capital contribution, profit distribution or loss sharing.

· The management approach in terms of who will conduct, direct, supervise, control and the controlling partner’s authority to obligate the entity.

· The structure and decision-making responsibilities of the team/partners/parties in terms of who will control the manner and method of performance of work.

· Percentage participation between the team/partners/parties.

· Identify the personnel having the authority to legally bind the offeror.

Set forth procedures to be followed in the event that the entity is dissolved due to unforeseen circumstances, such as the bankruptcy of a member.

A list of subcontractors/partners/parties, to include company names, DUNS, and CAGE numbers, address, point of contact, email address, phone number and facsimile number.

The government will review teaming arrangement to determine if the written agreement involves two or more companies forming a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor; or a potential prime contractor agreeing with one or more other companies to have them act as its subcontractors.

Under part (7) Supporting Cost Data, the Price Proposal shall contain a complete detailed breakdown for each contract period by Labor Category, and by type of cost to support the Section B amounts. Provide supporting worksheets and narrative explanations to fully explain the basis and rationale for the proposed amounts including backup details that can be related to the various segments of your Price Proposal.

The Price Summary Worksheets and Labor & Fringe Benefits Worksheets (Section J, Attachment JB-1 JB-2 Pricing Schedule), illustrate a required format. Offerors shall not deviate from the basic format of the forms identified in this solicitation. The Price Proposal shall include the completed mandatory forms and supporting information in the general format outlined. Please carefully review the notes in Section J, Schedule B, Attachment JB-1 JB-2 Pricing Schedule. In addition to submitting a Cost Summary Worksheet for each contract period, offerors shall submit a JB-1 Summary Worksheet that provides a grand total roll-up combining all contract periods. Ensure that the supporting price worksheets reconcile to each other and to your Schedule B worksheet. The JB-1 Summary Worksheet total proposed price is for analysis purposes only and will not be used as the total award amount.

Supporting Price Narrative: Offerors are to submit a written narrative, organized into separate paragraphs and labeled, to provide the Government with sufficient explanation/justification to clearly explain the following: (i) basis and rationale for proposed amounts; (ii) description of types of costs; and (iii) explanation of how rates/prices were calculated/estimated. NOTE: The Government will not accept any assumptions in the Offeror’s Price Proposal.

Offerors shall submit the supporting data in the same format for the Base Period, and each Option Period 1 through 4. Additional information or requirements are as follows:

a. Direct Labor and Fringe Benefits. The Price Narrative shall describe all proposed fringe benefits and labor burdens in sufficient detail to disclose all the elements included (i.e. statutory (FICA, FUTA, SUTA), Insurances, other benefits paid by the employer). The basis for proposed labor rates, fringe benefits and labor burdens shall be disclosed. Offerors are to price U.S. Citizens ONLY. Task orders will specify which positions/projects will allow the assignment of foreign nationals based on the security restrictions of the Task Order.

b. Other Direct Costs (ODC). The Narrative shall include an itemized listing of all elements you categorize as ODC and basis for pricing. At a minimum, Offerors shall propose ODC at the Contract level in accordance with PWS Section 2.16 Contractor Furnished Resources:

(1) Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), equipment, office supplies;

(2) Communication equipment & accessories/services - laptop, software, cell phone & service, internet connection.

The Narrative shall also include a detailed listing of items required by the PWS that are necessary to accomplish the work, if categorized/priced as ODC, including but not limited to job preparation/onboarding, security clearance, required training/certifications, background check. If not priced as ODC, see c. Mark up Percentage (%) below.

Any contractor furnished resources that are dependent on the scope of work and/or location if required, shall be considered at the individual Task Order level and negotiated separately.

ODC Travel/Transportation:

· Offerors shall not propose Travel/Transportation that is dependent upon the task order scope of work and/or location If required, they will be considered at the individual Task Order level and negotiated separately.

· Offerors shall not propose Travel/Transportation associated with the movement/mobilization of workers from their current location/residence to their assigned duty location. If required, travel/transportation will be considered at the individual Task Order level and negotiated separately.

· Offerors shall not propose Full Relocation (such as household goods shipments to/from duty location). If required, full relocation will be considered on a case-by-case basis at the Task Order level. It is not the Government’s intent to rely on full relocation; rather the Government’s preference is for the contractor to hire temporary duty (TDY) assignments up to one year duration, which may be renewed/extended as needed, based on the successful performance of the individual.

The Government may pay travel and relocation expenses, only provided they are allowable in accordance with FAR 31.205-46 Travel and FAR 31.205-35 Relocation. Travel and Relocation will be negotiated separately and the mark-up percentage will not be accepted.

Task order specific ODC and Travel/Transportation costs will not result in adjustments to the Schedule B fully burdened hourly rates.

c. Mark-Up Percentage (%). Offerors shall provide a Mark-Up expressed as a percentage (%), which shall include indirect costs (i.e. Overhead, General & Administrative, etc.), and Profit. Provide a detailed supporting price Narrative to clearly identify the types of costs included. The Mark-Up percentage will be applied to Total Direct Costs (i.e. Labor & Fringe Benefits, ODCs (if applicable)) and will remain in effect for the life of the contract. Round all Mark-Up percentages to the nearest two decimal places. If no Mark-Up % is applied, enter "N/A."

Offerors shall ensure the Mark-Up includes adequate supervision of personnel and all management responsibility for the administration of the contract as required by the PWS. The Mark-Up Narrative shall include a detailed listing of items required by the PWS that are necessary to accomplish the work, that are categorized/priced in the Mark-Up percentage. See b. Other Direct Costs, for items priced as ODC.

The Mark-Up percentage shall include applicable taxes, including but not limited to Hawaii GET, Guam BPT. Offerors are expected to familiarize themselves with the U.S. locations or host country specific tax requirements, FAR/DFARS requirements and exemptions, Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA) and other tax laws whether or not the United States Government provides notice of the existence of such requirements.

VOLUME II – NON-PRICE PROPOSAL

See L.1 for Volume II submittal instructions.

The format of Volume II should be as follows:

(1) Offeror is strongly encouraged to limit the information submitted to pertinent information that responds to the non-price evaluation criteria.

(2) Non-Price proposal is limited to 100 single sided pages of written narrative. CPARS Evaluations, PPQs and all J Attachments. Charts/graphs are excluded from the 100 page count limit.

(3) Paper format shall be white, 8-1/2” X 11” and have margins of 1-inch on all four sides. For charts, graphs, and spreadsheets, paper shall be 11” x 17”.

(4) Text shall be a font of Arial with a type size no smaller than 11 point and single line spacing.

(5) Graphic text shall be legible and no smaller than 8-point text.

The Offeror’s non-price proposal shall be precise, detailed and complete. The Offeror shall provide a narrative description in sufficient detail that addresses each of the following non-price criteria:

FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE

Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The Offeror and team members (e.g., subcontractors, JV partners, LLCs, etc.) shall demonstrate past performance by submitting a minimum of three (3), and a maximum of five (5) recent, relevant projects (as defined in the Notes for Factors 1 & 2). The five (5) projects must each have a minimum value of $750K or more per years.

The scope of work must demonstrate the complexity of the construction management service projects. Projects that included construction management services for underlying construction projects; where the construction project included the following aspects of construction are considered more relevant: dry dock construction, site grading, concrete work, mechanical, roofing, electrical, air conditioning, fire sprinkler/fire protection system, telecommunication systems and utility infrastructure (i.e. steam, potable water, electric power, sanitary sewage, storm drain, etc).

IF BOTH FINAL AND INTERIM CPARS EVALUATIONS ARE AVAILABLE, THEY SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE PROPOSAL. IF THERE ARE NO COMPLETED CPARS EVALUATIONS, the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment JL-2) included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 1, Past Performance. AN OFFEROR SHALL NOT SUBMIT A PPQ WHEN A COMPLETED CPARS IS AVAILABLE.

IF A CPARS EVALUATION IS NOT AVAILABLE, ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment JL-2), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, Vanessa Cariaso, via email at prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other RFPs. However, the Government may choose to consider previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.”

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating relevant past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) using all CAGE Codes/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offerors’ proposal, inquiries of ownership representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror. The Government will determine the relevance of the past performance information received on other projects, as well as consider the source, context and currency of such information in its evaluation. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

FACTOR 2: EXPERIENCE

Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The same projects submitted for Factor 2, Experience, must also be submitted for Factor 1, Past Performance. Offerors shall submit a minimum of three (3), and a maximum of five (5) projects, each with a minimum value of $750K or more per year, with each project demonstrating their ability to successfully perform the proposed efforts of providing staffing for professional engineering and construction management services.

If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), recent/relevant experience should be submitted for projects completed by the JV entity. If the JV members have not previously performed together, then the Factor 2 Experience submission must include at least one (1) recent/relevant project demonstrating performance for each individual JV partner. JV offerors are still limited to a maximum combined total of five (5) recent/relevant projects.

If a project was performed by a JV, and not all partners from the prior JV are proposing on this solicitation, the Offeror shall clearly demonstrate what portion of the work on such submitted project was performed by the JV partner currently offering on this solicitation. If the Offeror does not specifically address what portion of the work under the submitted project was performed by the JV partner offering on this contract as detailed here, the project will not be considered relevant.

Notes for Factors 1&2:

(1) The distinction between “experience” and “past performance” is that experience pertains to the volume of work completed by a contractor that is comparable to the types of work described under the definition of recent, relevant projects, in terms of product or service type, size, scope, and complexity. Past performance pertains to both the relevance of recent efforts and how well a contractor has performed on the contracts.

(2) Definition of “recent relevant project” is as follows:

In order to be considered recent, a project must have at least one year of performance within a five (5) year period immediately preceding the date of issuance of the solicitation. The ratings in Table 2 of Section M shall be used to determine the relevancy. In general, relevant means sufficiently similar to the current acquisition to provide indicators of expected performance. For example, relevancy may be established by: similar product or service type, similar product or service complexity, similar contract type, similar contract dollar value, similar program phase, same division of the company that will do the work, same major or critical subcontractors, teaming partners and joint ventures.

In addition projects valued at or over $1M for which your company provided construction management services for the entire duration of the construction project as the PRIME contractor or as a contractor with a teaming agreement may be considered more favorably. Project value is defined as the contract value of the construction management services contract, NOT the underlying construction contract value of the projects for which your company provided oversight. Construction management services for this project should include all phases of a project from design review to pre-construction meetings to closeout.

(3) Past performance on relevant contracts in a DoD controlled industrial area may be considered more favorably.

(4) Projects must be stand-alone contracts or task orders, must have at least one year of performance within a five (5) year period immediately preceding the date of issuance of the solicitation, and must demonstrate the offeror’s ability to perform the proposed effort. The submission of information on a basic IDIQ contract will not be considered. The offeror must demonstrate in its proposal how a project is relevant to this solicitation.

(5) The term “Offeror” typically refers to a single corporation submitting a proposal either as a prime contractor or a joint venture (JV) composed of multiple organizations submitting a proposal as joint-venture partners. “Offeror” is also defined as other legal entities such as Limited Partnerships (LTD), and Limited Liability Companies (LLC). In its evaluation of past performance and experience, the Government’s evaluation will generally focus on the entities submitting the proposal (Single Corporation, individual joint venture partners, the LTD or the LLC). Where the offeror is composed of multiple entities, projects submitted to establish past performance of one or more of those entities must indicate that the same entity which is part of the current offeror performed the work in the project offered to establish past performance and experience. Past performance will only be credited for the particular work performed by the current offering entity, and not for portions of the prior project performed by other entities. Projects performed by the current offeror as a prime contractor may be considered more favorably. Past performance and Experience will NOT be considered for subsidiaries, sister-companies, affiliates or parent companies.

(6) If an Offeror is utilizing past performance or experience information of LLC/LTD member companies (name not exactly as stated on the SF1449), the proposal shall clearly demonstrate that the LLC/LTD member companies will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract in order for the past performance or corporate experience information of the LLC/LTD member companies to be considered. The proposal shall state the specific resources (e.g., workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) that the LLC/LTD member companies will commit towards the performance of this contract. If the Offeror does not specifically address what portion of the work under the submitted project was performed by the LLC/LTD/JV member(s) offering on this contract, the project will not be considered relevant. Prime contractor/Joint Ventures/LLCs/LTDs with a demonstrated history of working successfully together on prior projects may be considered more favorably than those without such history.

FACTOR 3: SAFETY

Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit the following information: The Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate; and Total Case Rate (TCR) for the specified five (5) Calendar Years (CY), as well as a safety narrative, as described further below. For a partnership or joint venture, the Offeror shall submit separate DART rates and TCR for the specified five (5) CY for each contractor who is part of the partnership/joint venture; however, only one safety narrative is required. Any fatalities experienced within this 5-year timeframe must be explained in detail, to include root cause and corrective actions.

NOTE: DART and TCR shall not be submitted for subcontractors

1. DART Rate: Submit five (5) previous complete calendar years’ [CY2018, CY2019, CY2020, CY2021, and CY2022] worth of data (not an overall average). If the Offeror has no DART rate, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why. Should a negative trend occur above moderate risk levels, an acceptable/detailed explanation is required that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

a. DART cases include injuries or illnesses resulting in death, days away from work, and/or restricted work or transfer to another job days beyond the day of injury/illness.

b. Calculation of DART rate: Multiply the total number of DART cases by 200,000, and then divide by the number of employee labor hours worked.

2. TCR Rate: Submit five (5) previous complete calendar years’ [CY2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022] worth of data (not an overall average). If the Offeror has no TCR rate, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why. Should a negative trend occur above moderate risk levels, an acceptable/detailed explanation is required that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

a. TCR cases include injuries or illnesses resulting in death, days away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job days beyond the day of injury/illness, medical treatment beyond first aid, or loss of consciousness.

b. Calculation of TCR rate: Multiply the total number of TCR incidents by 200,000, and then divide by the number of employee labor hours worked.

3. Technical Approach to Safety: Submit a narrative that addresses the following:

a. Describe the Offeror’ s approach to implementing and executing a Safety Management System (SMS) including Management/Leadership involvement, Employee involvement, Hazard prevention, Hazard control, Worksite analysis, and Safety and health training, to include the standard(s) used to benchmark the SMS.

b. Describe the evaluation process used to select potential subcontractors.

c. Describe the processes of how the Offeror will oversee safety compliance of subcontractors at all levels throughout performance of the contract (to include the Offeror’s own in-house workforce).

d. The Technical Approach to Safety narrative shall be limited to two (2) single-sided pages or one (1) double-sided page.

4. The Government reserves the right to review other available sources (public/Government internal) of information. These may include but are not limited to OSHA data, NAVFAC’s Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Electronic Contract Management System (eCMS), etc.

(End of Addenda)

FAR 52.212-2, EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (NOV 2021)

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. In addition, if the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

The tradeoff process is selected as appropriate for this acquisition. The Government considers it to be in its best interest to allow consideration of award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror.

Any proposal found to have a deficiency in meeting the stated solicitation requirements or performance objectives will be considered ineligible for award, unless the deficiency is corrected through discussions. An Unacceptable rating in any of the non-cost/price factors and/or sub-factors will result in an overall rating of “Unacceptable” for the non-cost/price factors, unless corrected through discussions. Proposals may be found to have either a significant weakness or multiple weaknesses that impact either the individual factor rating or the overall rating for the proposal. The evaluation report must document the evaluation board’s assessment of the identified weakness(s) and the associated risk to successful contract performance resulting from the weakness(s). This assessment must provide the rationale for proceeding to award without discussions.

Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors The relative order of importance of the non-price evaluation factors is the technical factors Factor 2 – Experience and Factor 3 – Safety are of equal importance to each other and, when combined are equal in importance to the past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment factor, Factor 1 – Past Performance. When the proposal is evaluated as a whole, the technical factors and past performance/performance confidence assessment factors combined (i.e., the non-price evaluation factors) are significantly more important than price.

Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose offer conformed to the solicitation and represents the best value to the Government, price and non-price factors considered.

Price Evaluation Factors

1. Price proposals will not be assigned an adjectival rating, but shall be evaluated for completeness and price reasonableness. Offerors’ price for evaluation purposes shall be the Base Period, and each Option Period 1 through 4. The Government intends to evaluate all options and has included the provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990) in Section M of the solicitation. In accordance with FAR 52.217-5, evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). The following will be evaluated:

a. Completeness: All information/data required by the RFP has been submitted, tracks to the PWS requirements and supports the proposal.

b. Price Reasonableness: Prices and the Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity rates/prices are fully justified and supported, and are considered fair and reasonable to the government. Reasonableness may also be determined by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price: (1) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the RFP; (2) Comparison of proposed prices with the Independent Government Estimate; (3) Comparison of proposed prices with available historical information; and/or (4) Comparison of market survey results.

2. The Price proposal volume will also be evaluated to ensure the completion of the representations and certifications in Section K of the RFP and the inclusion and submission of other information required.

3. In accordance with FAR 9.104-1 responsibility determination, Offerors will be evaluated to ensure that they have the financial capability to perform the contract given the magnitude of the proposed work.

4. Prices unbalanced between the various periods, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for rejecting a proposal on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirement, or that a price would not be reasonable to the government.

Non-Cost/Price (Technical) Evaluation Factors The Government will apply the following evaluation factors to identify the “best value” proposal:

(1) Factor 1 – Past Performance

(i) Basis of Evaluation The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s ability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. The currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

The first is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. The third is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of an offeror’s contract history that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will satisfy the current procurement. Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services) and extent of subcontract/teaming. The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance (see FAR 15.304[c][2]). The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. A separate quality assessment rating is not required; rather, the past performance rating using the confidence assessment rating, is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. The past performance evaluation does not establish, create, or change the existing and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from other sources on how well the Offeror performed on those contracts.

The Government will evaluate the degree to which past performance evaluations for relevant projects submitted under Factor 1, Past Performance, and all other past performance information for relevant projects which may be reviewed and considered by the Government (e.g. CPARS, PPIRS, or PPQ(s) (Attachment JL-2), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System and information obtained from any other source) reflect a general trend of satisfactory performance in areas that will assist the Government in determining whether an Offeror will successfully perform the required effort such as:

· Technical/Quality of Product or Service

· Schedule/Timeliness of Performance or Delivery

· Cost Control and Management

· Management and/or Business Relations

· Regulatory Compliance

· Other (as annotated in the applicable CPAR)

In the case of an Offeror without a record of recent relevant past performance or for whom information on past contract performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv). In this case, the Offeror’s past performance is unknown and will be assigned a confidence rating of “Neutral.” However, an Offeror with favorable recent relevant past performance may be considered more favorably than an Offeror with no past performance information. Provide offerors an opportunity to provide information regarding any problems they encountered on the identified contracts and their corrective actions in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii).

(2) Factor 2 – Experience

(i) Basis of Evaluation The proposal must completely address all submission requirements in Section L, Factor 2. The assessment of the Offeror’s recent and relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of this solicitation. The minimum standard for experience has been met when the offeror has demonstrated adequate experience in performing a minimum of three (3) combined total of no more than five (5) recent and relevant projects of similar size, scope, and complexity to this requirement. Offerors will be evaluated on recent relevant experience performed by the Offeror to determine indicators of expected performance. The Government will take into consideration the complexity and quantity of experiences.

The basis of evaluation will include the offeror’s demonstrated experience and depth of experience in performing recent, relevant construction management services projects as defined in the solicitation submittal requirements. The assessment of the offeror’s relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP.

a. Evaluation of experience will consider the following:

· The extent to which the contract was performed by providing similar staffing as required by this solicitation, on dry dock construction projects;

· The extent to which the contract was performed by providing similar staffing as required by this solicitation, on projects which included the following types of work: site grading, concrete work, mechanical, roofing, electrical, air conditioning, fire sprinkler/fire protection system, telecommunication systems and utility infrastructure

· Executed projects performed as the prime on the construction management services contract (minimum 50% of contract value); the experience of a JV partner will be considered as the experience of the prime contractor.

· Executed projects with demonstrated staff retention, as opposed to turnover for the duration of the task order or contract period of performance;

· Executed contracts performed on NAVFAC and/or DoD projects;

· Executed projects performed with Construction Manager(s) and Engineering Technician(s) with similar qualifications as required by this solicitation.

Notes for Factors 1&2:

(1) The distinction between “experience” and “past performance” is that experience pertains to the volume of work completed by a contractor that is comparable to the types of work described under the definition of recent, relevant projects, in terms of product or service type, size, scope, and complexity. Past performance pertains to both the relevance of recent efforts and how well a contractor has performed on the contracts.

(2) Definition of “recent relevant project” is as follows:

In order to be considered recent, a project must have at least one year of performance within a five (5) year period immediately preceding the date of issuance of the solicitation. The ratings in Table 2 of Section M shall be used to determine the relevancy. In general, relevant means sufficiently similar to the current acquisition to provide indicators of expected performance. For example, relevancy may be established by: similar product or service type, similar product or service complexity, similar contract type, similar contract dollar value, similar program phase, same division of the company that will do the work, same major or critical subcontractors, teaming partners and joint ventures.

In addition projects valued at or over $1M for which your company provided construction management services for the entire duration of the construction project as the PRIME contractor or as a contractor with a teaming agreement may be considered more favorably. Project value is defined as the contract value of the construction management services contract, NOT the underlying construction contract value of the projects for which your company provided oversight. Construction management services for this project should include all phases of a project from design review to pre-construction meetings to closeout.

(3) Past performance on relevant contracts in a DoD controlled industrial area may be considered more favorably.

(4) Projects must be stand-alone contracts or task orders, must have at least one year of performance within a five (5) year period immediately preceding the date of issuance of the solicitation, and must demonstrate the offeror’s ability to perform the proposed effort. The submission of information on a basic IDIQ contract will not be considered. The offeror must demonstrate in its proposal how a project is relevant to this solicitation.

(5) The term “Offeror” typically refers to a single corporation submitting a proposal either as a prime contractor or a joint venture (JV) composed of multiple organizations submitting a proposal as joint-venture partners. “Offeror” is also defined as other legal entities such as Limited Partnerships (LTD), and Limited Liability Companies (LLC).